Last years US Open became a major battleground in the struggle between the players and Grand Slam officials over the thorny issue of how big the slice of tournament revenue should go to the players in prize money and now it is emerging that next Januaryís Australian Open is seriously under threat of a boycott from competitors if things donít improve.

A mandatory meeting for all ATP World Tour players will take place in New York tomorrow (Saturday) evening and there is growing pressure to stage a mass boycott of the Australian Open; by virtue of both finance and geography the least strong of the four majors.

Rumors currently abound that the ATP is contemplating staging a large alternative event, almost certainly in Dubai , if moves are not made to give the players a larger percentage of tournament revenue that currently stands below 20%.

The major issue is not the prizes on offer to the winners, this year Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer all picked up record prize checks for their respective wins in the Australian Open, the French Open and Wimbledon , but the awards for losers in the initial rounds. This year all of the majors announced improvements in this respect, Wimbledon announced a 26% pay rise for first-round losers, but clearly it is not enough.

And the overriding message that will come from the New York meeting will undoubtedly be: We the players are integral to the financial success of the four major events because without us they wouldnít generate as much revenue. Therefore we deserve more.

Earlier this year the issue caused a split between Federer, the long term President of the ATP Players Council, and his deputy Nadal. The Spaniard became so frustrated as Federers intransigence to support any action that he actually resigned from his position.

Federer is crucial to the whole issue because he has a good relationship with all four majors and up to now has always respected their eminence in the game. However it now emerges the Swiss is finally to end his nationís tradition of neutrality and prepared to lead the fight.

However the irony of the situation is that the ATP boycott in Melbourne would be organized by executive chairman Brad Drewett who is of course an Australian and is thought to have considered joining Tennis Australia when the issue of a successor to the outgoing Adam Helfant dragged on a year ago.A boycott of the Austalian Open would also have a potentially disastrous effect on the build up events staged at Brisbane and Drewettís home-town of Sydney as well as Auckland in New Zealand . Few leading players would be prepared to make the long January trip if big money was to be made available in the Middle East .

Jonas Bjorkman, once an integral member of the ATP Players Council and now involved in the running of Swedish events in Bastad and Stockholm , understands the mood. It has been coming for a very long time, he said. Basically the players have felt they have been screwed over by the Slams for many years. Back when I was playing the percentage of revenue dedicated to prize money was below 14%.When the guys see how much goes to players pay in other sports, and the figures are much nearer to 50% than 15, they begin to think that something needs to be done.

In addition to my patriotic sentiments, I'd be very sad if this happens. The AO is played in a great tennis center in Melbourne only 15 minutes walk (or a free tram) from downtown and has the two major courts with retractable roofs. I really enjoyed it in 2011. You also get to see the Australia Day fireworks!

by virtue of both finance and geography the least strong of the four majors.

Dubai

Quote

but the awards for losers in the initial rounds. This year all of the majors announced improvements in this respect, Wimbledon announced a 26% pay rise for first-round losers, but clearly it is not enough.

Rafa won this H2H too

Quote

Earlier this year the issue caused a split between Federer, the long term President of the ATP Players Council, and his deputy Nadal. The Spaniard became so frustrated as Federers intransigence to support any action that he actually resigned from his position.

Thanks, Swish. Interesting news.I don't appreciate the tone of this article though,& as far as my understanding of Nadal's resignation goes, he was angry about a number of issues and did not resign for selfless reasons such as higher payments to early losers. He was more concerned about the number of mandatory tournaments. His preference is to cut down play on other surfaces but keep the clay ones. Not entirely selfless. He also had a bee in his bonnet about extending the number 1 ranking to a two year fixed limit. Again, this would suit only the top players. And why resign? If you are a top player, which he is, and have a passion for your beliefs, why not stay & fight the corner?

I accept bias in these articles is par for the course - objectivity & factual reportage is wishful thinking these days. But the writer should not twist the facts to make a point.

And to relate Federer's refusal to get drawn into issues he did not want to support as linked to his nations neutrality is uncalled for. It's like inferring that Spain is a great champion of Human Rights in comparison. Show me the evidence on that, please, and I'll consider the matter further. Spain is struggling financially & looking for a bail out from the EU. Switzerland isn't. The financial stability offered by Switzerland to its citizens is therefore somewhat more commendable than that offered by Spain Perhaps Nadal ought to be speaking out about that.

As for the AO, I hope the ATP are reviewing all the slams. The decisions made should be comparable across the board & not a piecemeal approach. And if they open the hornets nest of players rights, I trust they will look at the system of draw selections, playing conditions and number of mandatory tournaments, homogenisation of courts etc.

EUROKA - I am planning to go to the AO 2013. So for that reason alone, I think they should leave it in!!

I found this piece on the issue of Nadal's resignation, which is "on topic" here because the article that started this thread refers to his resignation for reasons of the issue of players earnings. Not so, as I said above. Here is an independent take on it:

Rafael Nadal resigns as ATP players' body vice-president after lack of movement on changes to ranking systemThe tensions at the top of menís tennis were thrown into relief yesterday by the news that a frustrated Rafael Nadal has quit his role as vice-president of the player council.

By Simon Briggs in Miami

8:16PM BST 26 Mar 2012

Nadalís resignation appears to have had little to do with the main issue preoccupying the player council at present, which is the size of their pay packets at the four grand slam tournaments.

Rather, it has been triggered by the lack of movement on Nadalís pet project, the introduction of a two-year ranking system. He has argued repeatedly that this is the best way to prolong the careers of the leading players, by making it easier for them to withdraw from tournaments when they have physical ailments.

But Roger Federer, who is supposed to work with Nadal as president of the player council, has stated his own objection to the two-year idea. ďI think it would make things rather boring,Ē he said in December. ďIt would be a struggle for lower-ranked players to make the breakthrough.Ē

The other main point of difference between the sportís two most famous players was around the appointment of the new ATP chief executive, a post that was given to Brad Drewett around the turn of the year.

Nadal backed the application of former Wimbledon champion Richard Krajicek, believing that as a top-10 player from the 1990s, Krajicek would be more likely to feel sympathetic towards his complaints of overload.

as much as i like to see something of that sort happening for the benefit of lesser players, i don't see it happening........

ITF will somehow find a way out of this mess(shame i have to use this word) like usual by increasing prize money for earlier rounds and other pointed out areas by 1% or something and thereby satisfying the egos of all the boycott-interested players temporarily........

ITF when combined with their greed makes for a mastermind for crooked ideas and cheating........they know how to run their business........

unless the major strength of this era - nadal, fedoriva, faker and mugray really threaten to boycott openly, this move will not gain much force........i wrote "nadal" because at least he has the balls to voice his honest opinion and quit the job he was given when his colleagues turned a deaf ear to his honest opinions for lesser ranked players........

apart from that little effort from rafa, all the top 4 are puppet boys of ITF and don't care much for other players.........why would they care when they are earning more than enough and majority of the spotlight is on them........

Logged

Marian Vajda to Novak Djokovic, "I saw you beat that man like I never saw no man get beat before, and the man KEPT COMING AFTER YOU! Now we don't need no man like that in our lives."

unless the major strength of this era - nadal, fedoriva, faker and mugray really threaten to boycott openly, this move will not gain much force........i wrote "nadal" because at least he has the balls to voice his honest opinion and quit the job he was given when his colleagues turned a deaf ear to his honest opinions for lesser ranked players........

Nadalís resignation appears to have had little to do with the main issue preoccupying the player council at present, which is the size of their pay packets at the four grand slam tournaments.

Rather, it has been triggered by the lack of movement on Nadalís pet project, the introduction of a two-year ranking system. He has argued repeatedly that this is the best way to prolong the careers of the leading players, by making it easier for them to withdraw from tournaments when they have physical ailments.

unless the major strength of this era - nadal, fedoriva, faker and mugray really threaten to boycott openly, this move will not gain much force........i wrote "nadal" because at least he has the balls to voice his honest opinion and quit the job he was given when his colleagues turned a deaf ear to his honest opinions for lesser ranked players........

Nadalís resignation appears to have had little to do with the main issue preoccupying the player council at present, which is the size of their pay packets at the four grand slam tournaments.

Rather, it has been triggered by the lack of movement on Nadalís pet project, the introduction of a two-year ranking system. He has argued repeatedly that this is the best way to prolong the careers of the leading players, by making it easier for them to withdraw from tournaments when they have physical ailments.

"Nadal has the balls to voice his honest opinion"

two year ranking system benefits players outside the top 100 because most of them are inconsistent and disappear from the ranking chart once they have a bad season........so one bad season still gives them a chance to enter most tournaments and protect their hard earned position........

nadal doesn't need that 2 year system..........he hasn't struck a tennis ball since wimbledon 2nd round and guess what his ranking is now.........top players are top players regardless of the ranking system in place........

Logged

Marian Vajda to Novak Djokovic, "I saw you beat that man like I never saw no man get beat before, and the man KEPT COMING AFTER YOU! Now we don't need no man like that in our lives."

two year ranking system benefits players outside the top 100 because most of them are inconsistent and disappear from the ranking chart once they have a bad season........so one bad season still gives them a chance to enter most tournaments and protect their hard earned position........

nadal doesn't need that 2 year system..........he hasn't struck a tennis ball since wimbledon 2nd round and guess what his ranking is now.........top players are top players regardless of the ranking system in place........

Your logic is unbelievable.

Two year ranking hurts lower players as they will not be able to rise as easily as they can now. For eg. Haas and Baker would not have risen so spectacularly up the ATP Rankings if we had a two year ranking now.

Nadal proposed this a long time back when he was still #1. After he lost his #1 ranking last year and realised that nobody was going to support his proposal, he quit the ATP Player's Council in March.

two year ranking system benefits players outside the top 100 because most of them are inconsistent and disappear from the ranking chart once they have a bad season........so one bad season still gives them a chance to enter most tournaments and protect their hard earned position........

nadal doesn't need that 2 year system..........he hasn't struck a tennis ball since wimbledon 2nd round and guess what his ranking is now.........top players are top players regardless of the ranking system in place........

Your logic is unbelievable.

Two year ranking hurts lower players as they will not be able to rise as easily as they can now. For eg. Haas and Baker would not have risen so spectacularly up the ATP Rankings if we had a two year ranking now.

Nadal proposed this a long time back when he was still #1. After he lost his #1 ranking last year and realised that nobody was going to support his proposal, he quit the ATP Player's Council in March.

You're right on that. The lower ranked players have an advantage with the ONE year ranking. Check the rankings each week and you constantly see big jumps by some lower ranked payers. +26 or +38, etc. and Haas and Baker are great examples of this. If they were going on a 2 year ranking, we wouldn't be talking about how great they both have moved up this year.

it works both ways........staying in top 100 is equally important for lesser ranked players........in fact "staying" allows them to make more money than just to get in and get out in a flash........

players like haas would have taken a little more time to get to top 100 but would have stayed much longer in the rankings without winning much........

my logic is just fine i guess........

Yes it works for a set of lower ranked players and those slightly lower will suffer because it will no longer be a year to move up but rather two.

How can a sober man like Nadal even suggest such an idea is beyond me. Let's assume they (ATP) are giving Nadal's idea a thought, how did he propose the system will work ? How are points given ? Its like me saying I'm going to Mars. Plain ridiculous. And yet people still argue over it. Pffffffffffff.

Part of the solution to having your health for years is smart scheduling.Another part is taking off when there's a problem, you may lose points but that should come secondary to maintaining health.The players that schedule according to what they can handle benefit from the one year system, that is part of the interest in following the sport IMO.

The difference between short term results and a long successful career.